BBBBB EEEEEE NN N ISSN 1188-603X
BB B EE NNN N
BBBBB EEEEE NN N N BOTANICAL
BB B EE NN NN ELECTRONIC
BBBBB EEEEEE NN N NEWS
No. 117 November 2, 1995
aceska at freenet.victoria.bc.ca Victoria, B.C.
-----------------------------------------------------------
Dr. A. Ceska, P.O.Box 8546, Victoria, B.C. Canada V8W 3S2
-----------------------------------------------------------
FREEZE-DRYING OF FUNGI DOES NOT WORK TOO WELL
From: Dr. Brenda Callan <BCALLAN at PFC.Forestry.CA>
During a fungal biodiversity workshop Oct. 15-19, 1995, at USDA
Headquarters in Beltsville, MD., a presentation and discussion
session on herbarium curation was led by Dr. Quixan Wu from the
Field Museum in Chicago. Freeze-drying as a preservation method
for fungal herbarium specimens was discussed. Mycologists
present at the workshop agreed that this technique was unsatis-
factory for a number of reasons:
1. Freeze-dried fungi retain their macroscopic features such as
color and form for a few years, but are extremely fragile,
and soon break into small unrecognizable fragments after
normal use.
2. Freeze-dried fungal tissue disintegrates and loses both
macroscopic and microscopic morphological features after
rehydration.
Conventional drying methods (40 C in a drying oven) often cause
shrinking, and some discoloration and distortion of macroscopic
features of fungi. However, the resulting specimens are struc-
turally stronger and thus less likely to break apart during
subsequent examination, and important key microscopic features,
such as spore morphology, remain constant and rehydrate beauti-
fully even in very old collections. A conventionally-dried
fungus accompanied by good field notes is a far better long-term
investment than a freeze-dried collection.
Traditionally, fungal herbarium accessions are microscopically
examined either by using preserved slides included with the
specimen, or by sectioning and rehydrating a small piece of
tissue. The latter technique does not work with most freeze-
dried specimens, whose tissues collapse upon rehydration.
CO-OPERATION BETWEEN BOTANISTS AND PLANT PATHOLOGISTS
From: Dr. Stephan Helfer <S.Helfer at RBGE.ORG.UK>
from TAXACOM <TAXACOM at CMSA.BERKELEY.EDU>
For the past few years I have been working on the taxonomy and
floristics of rust fungi (and some powdery mildews). During this
work it has struck me how little co-operation there is between
higher plant collectors and plant pathologists.
Most botanists collect the cleanest specimens they can find, and
some pathologists only collect infected parts of host plants,
making it near impossible for the botanists to identify them to
any detail. Both sides are thereby losing out: the botanist, as
many biotrophic parasites are very host specific, and the
presence of e.g. a rust can help with the identification /
taxonomy of a plant; and the pathologist plainly because valu-
able information can not be provided.
I therefore propose that specimen collectors of both disciplines
keep in mind the interests and needs of the other
discipline.They can thereby help themselves and each other as
well as the community as a whole.
RE: COMMON NAMES - FROM OUR MAIL BOX - PART III (THE END)
From: Jari Oksanen <jari at ibg.uit.no> (from bionet.plants)
Nordic scientists are perhaps the greatest sinners in coining
"colloquial" or "vernacular" names which are used only in
academic papers. Special committees of botanists have been
working in Finland to invent names for macrofungi, lichens,
mosses, hepatics, etc. Similar efforts have been made in Norway
and Sweden as well. These lists are usually regarded as
authoritative, and if someone uses other names (e.g. genuinely
vernacular or colloquial names) the person is accused of using
"wrong" or "unofficial" names. Since the scientific community is
small and living in a compact geographic area, the "correct"
usage of national names can be controlled.
Personally, I find very difficult to understand why all plants
should have national names, especially when only a few people in
the whole country know those plants. When you write "jauhepi-
karitorvijakala", "karheatorvijakala" or "ruskopikari-
torvijakala", it is guaranteed that nobody understands you.
Those people who know these organisms have to check in some name
list that they are Cladonia chlorophaea, Cladonia grayi and
Cladonia pyxidata (I could not find a Finnish name for Cladonia
merochlorophaea, but it might by something like "jyvapikari-
torvijakala"). Those people who don't know these plants (the
vast majority of Finns) won't know their Finnish names either.
One of the funniest cases I've met was an article in a Finnish
conservation magazine on Aphyllophorales. The article used only
Finnish names. However, those Finnish names were invented by the
author of the article, and had not been published anywhere
(later they were published, I believe). So it was guaranteed
that only the closest friends of the author could know what
these fungi were. However, the idea was that a general reader
was not disturbed by cumbersome Latin names - it was not impor-
tant that these names had no meaning to any reader.
In Finland the botany students still have to learn the Latin
names (except in some basic courses). However, it seems that
here in Norway only national names are taught to students (and
many species have two national names: one in both official
Norwegian languages). I've moved recently from Finland to Nor-
way, and I think this is a problem when discussing with young
generation Norwegian botanists or students.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Submissions, subscriptions, etc.: aceska at freenet.victoria.bc.ca
BEN is archived on gopher freenet.victoria.bc.ca. The URL is:
gopher://freenet.victoria.bc.ca:70/11/environment/Botany/ben
________________________________________________________________